AFTAB HOSSAIN LASKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 26(1), KOLKATA

For that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

For that the Notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards assumption of jurisdiction for the purposes of making an assessment is bad- in-law.

For that the Notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act being not in conformity with the Instructions issued in the CBDTs Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 the entire assessment proceeding is bad-in-law and consequent thereto the assessment so made is liable to be annulled/quashed.

For that, without prejudice, (a) the CIT (A), NFAC erred in not providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the appellant to make submission with regard to the grounds of appeal taken for adjudication of the issues involved. (b) For that, without prejudice, the addition of Rs.97,38,000/- and Rs.1,07,93,318/- u/s 68 of the Act is wrong and uncalled for. (c) at, without prejudice, the addition so made by the A.O. is wrong and uncalled for being in utter disregard with the provisions of Sec.142 of the Act and the CIT (A) ought to have deleted the addition so made.

For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC failed to appreciate the facts of the case and in turn erred in confirming the action of the A.O. on alleged grounds.

For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above Grounds."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 25.03.2018 declaring total income at ₹8,23,440/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹97,38,000/- and cheques amounting to ₹1,22,74,274/- into his bank account. The Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period pertained to preceding years and added ₹97,38,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee had deposited an excess amount of ₹1,07,93,318/- other than by cash over and above the legitimate business and other receipts. The Ld. AO rejected the personal balance sheet reflecting unsecured loans as an afterthought and added a sum of ₹1,07,93,318/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO determined the total income at ₹2,13,54,760/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that the assessee had failed to furnish requisite details and documentary evidence in support of his claim despite being afforded sufficient opportunities of being heard, confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his findings as under: “8.0 DECISION:

1 I have carefully considered the material facts on record and grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

2 Further, even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the appellant has miserably failed to rebut the findings of the AO, as the appellant did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Even in form 35 vide sl. No. 11 and 12 he has stated that he will submit the documents at the time of hearing and that he does not rely on any other document other than those submitted before Income tax authority during the assessment proceedings respectively. The relevant portion of Form 35 is extracted below for ready reference.

3 Also on careful perusal of the ITR filed by the appellant so far it is noticed that he has filed the ITR of AY 2014-15 to AY 2021-22 and the returned income is Rs. 9,31,440/- to Rs. 44,13,200/-. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any details or documentary evidence forthcoming from the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the AO rightly made the impugned additions warranting no interference of the appellate authority.

4 From the conduct of the appellant as per the facts noted above, it is clear that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. Even otherwise on the merits of it also, I do not see any reason to differ with the findings of the AO since no attempt has been made by the appellant to discharge its onus of furnishing explanation/ documents in support of his claim made in the ground of appeal as to why addition is not attracted in this case. Hence, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements cited in the preceding paras and in view of the facts of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

0 In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts and circumstances on merits, the appeal filed by the appellant stands Dismissed.”

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset the Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ex parte and the assessee could not furnish the details due to paucity of time and further requested that the matter may be remanded before the Ld. CIT(A) so that proper submission could be made.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be confirmed and the appeal may be dismissed but did not seriously oppose the request of the assessee for remanding the matter before the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the assessee had not been able to make proper submission before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish all the ITA No(s). 2962/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 details as may be required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st September, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)